About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 11, Campos 10, Wiener 9, Olague 8, Us 7, Cohen 4, Chiu 3, Kim 3, Avalos 3, Elsbernd 2, Chu 2, Farrell 2, John Perez 2, California 2, Efrp 1, Abag 1, Merced 1, San Francisco Tenants Union 1, Air B & B 1, Amy Chen 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 16, 2012
    3:00 - 3:30pm PDT  

3:00pm
opportunity just a message to the civil grand jury. typically this time of year when we are approving our resolution and our motions and get up and thank them for their work. this time actually i'm going to take the opposite tact. i think the civil grand jury needs to caution itself. this is the first report i have seen where they have started analyzing private business practices. i think the civil grand jury should be about auditing city government. they are now geting into private business. i have some concerns about that, particularly when it's volunteers who frankly are not private business owners and don't necessarily know it. and these concerns really started to grow beyond just getting into private business affairs. the civil grand jury exercising legal analyses and providing legal opinion, which was the biggest concern that i had with their report last year on park merced. all of a sudden you have a report that has the stamp of the superior court and not one member of civil grand jury was an attorney and yet they offer
3:01pm
a legal opinion. i think the civil grand jury in a sense needs to check itself and make sure it gets back to its original mission of auditing city government and focusing on all practices and refrain from fashioning itself as a city-attorney or refrain from becoming the city controller. it's the civil grand jury. stick to your responsibilities. do those well before you start to get into things that are not within your core mission. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, i just want to make a couple of points. one to the extent there is this conversation about the date of the information that was looked at by the civil grand jury. i think that the civil grand jury actually responded tothat information noting that it what they were trying to look at is whether or not there was a change in the trend that he we were seeing? and to the extent of the limitations that were imposed on the use of these accounts, the law passed
3:02pm
doesn't address those limitations. so the point that has been made about the civil grand jury. i think there is a very important role for them to play and to the extent had a they are looking at the actions and activities of private businesses i think it's relevant for them to do that. because of a law that was passed by this board of supervisors and signed into law by the mayor, you have actions by private businesses that are impacting consumers. you have a situation where in some businesses consumers are being charged supposedly a fee, supposedly to provide health care and we see that the trend continues that the vast majority -- or the majority of the money being collected under that guise is, in fact, not being spent. i think it's appropriate when consumers are being impacted in that way for the civil grand jury to look at that. so i
3:03pm
appreciate their service. i think that even if you disagree with their conclusions, i think they were thoughtful and pretty thorough in their analysis. so i would ask those colleagues who believe that the legislation that was passed did not address the underlaying objective of closing that loophole as i think this report demonstrates that they vote no on this resolution today. thank you. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. and i agree with supervisor campos that it's good for citizens to participate and express their views. but so supervisor elsbernd's comments aren't misconstrued. this is not just a citizen discuss group where people come together and express their views and put out statements. this is the official civil grand jury with the title "civil grand jury," with the title "superior court" above and i think that brings on an
3:04pm
added responsibility beyond what a neighborhood association or a discussion group may have. so i think supervisor campos is correct that people should be encouraged to express their views, but when you are in that kind of official body, i think you have to be very, very conscientious of the limitations of what you are able to say or not say. ? >> colleagues any further discussion. madame clerk roll call. >> item 23 supervisor elsbernd? >> elsbernd aye. >> supervisor farrell? >> aye. >> supervisor kim? >> kim no. >> supervisor mar? >> no. >> mar no. >> supervisor olague? >> no. >> supervisor wiener? >> wiener, aye. >> supervisor avalos? >> no avalos no. >> supervisor campos? >> no. >> campos no. >> president chiu? >> aye. >> supervisor chu? >> aye. >> chu aye. >> supervisor cohen? >> [kho*-efrp/] aye. >> there are six ayes and five nos. the resolution is adopted. item 24. >> resolution authorizing the fire department to accept and
3:05pm
expend a grant in the amount of approximately $1.50 million to upgrade and repace it's self-contained breathing apparatus inventory. >> roll call vote." on item 24 supervisor elsbernd? >> elsbernd aye. >> supervisor farrell? >> farrell aye. >> supervisor kim? >> kim aye. >> supervisor mar aye. >> supervisor olague? >> olague aye. >> supervisor wiener? wiener aye. >> supervisor avalos aye. >> supervisor campos? >> aye. >> president chiu ? >> chiu aye. >> supervisor chu? >> aye. >> supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> eleven ayes? >> the resolution is adopted. item 25. ordinance amending the administrative code. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair, years ago in 19819 passage of the apartment conversion ordinance made it illegal for residential
3:06pm
propertis with four more units to be occupied for less than 30 days. unfortunately over the years there has been a loophole in the law that allows corporations to sidestep it signing leases with owners so they can use the apartment as short-term corporate housing. as an example, tenants at the golden gateway experience guests going in and out as a hotel. this practice has not only created quality of life issues for neighbors, but it's also taken limited housing opportunities away from city residents. the legislation we have in front of us clarifis that corporate entities cannot skirt our laws by signing long-term leases of residential apartments for planned occupancies of less than 30 days and also strengthens the enforcement process by creating an administrative hearing for the department of building inspection to evaluate complaints and also by giving residents the ability of
3:07pm
seeking legal recourse through the assistance of non-profit organizations. thank you for your support of this legislation and thank the advocates for tenants, the san francisco tenants union, the affordable housing alliance, community house right committee and i want to take a moment to acknowledge the good suggestion of an administrative review process by the coalition better housing and thank my aide amy chen for her work over the months. i want to take a quick moment to mention on a separate track i have been convening stakeholders, including air b & b and other internet companies to address the challenges associated with residents rest renting out their apartments while they are away on vacation or business in the field of sharable housing, but that is a
3:08pm
separate issue. i would ask for your support for the legislationing in front of us. >> colleagues any other questions or comments can we take this same house, same call? >> resolution passes on first reading. >> item 26 ordinance amending the san francisco planning code. >> colleagues same house, same call? this is passed [ gavel ] . >> item 27 ordinance amending the administrative code by adding section 10e.4 to monitor san francisco's housing preservation and production polices and goals. >> colleagues any discussion on this item? supervisor wiener? >> thank you mr. president. i don't know if the author was planning to make introductory comments. i would be happy to defer.
3:09pm
>> supervisor olague would you like to make introductory comments? [ inaudible ] >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i voted against this item in committee and clearly at articulated what my concerns is that we have a housing affordability supply crisis in san francisco. one of those elements is investment in affordable housing to make sure that we are providing that important category of housing, but there are other aspects of well and as much it would be great that we had enough government resources to make that the sole solution. realistically we're never going to be there. there is simply not enough public money for us to be able to invest the that level. so
3:10pm
my concern with this legislation was that as a dashboard, to show the planning commission the status of affordable housing for every single project coming before the commission was as if you had a dashboard that had the odometer on it and nothing else. if you have a dashboard it should give a complete picture of our housing situation. how many efficiencies, studios? one-bedroom? two-bedrooms we're producing, et cetera and to have that complete picture for the planning commission as it is considering various projects that come before it. so today i have distributed an amendment. we have distributed to you via email this morning and in
3:11pm
addition, i had alerted several colleagues including supervisor olague on saturday that the amendment would be coming. and that the amendment would reflect the concerns that i expressed in committee where all supervisors, including the author were present at that committee hearing. so the amendment would do exactly as i just indicated. would add in addition to informing the planning commission in the report about the status of affordable housing production to-date. would add in production of housing for middle-income households, including households earning between 120% and 150% of ami. senior housing and then the different sizes of housesing. so family housing, housing for single people, et cetera. i have worked closely with the planning department to ensure that they are able to collect this data. and they feel confident that they will be able to do so.
3:12pm
my amendments do notice change the other housing items proposed for monitoring under this legislation. now the planning department did request that i include a provision making clear that the dashboard would apply to projects that are already going to the planning commission and would not apply, for example, if someone is putting a deck on in the back of their house and it doesn't require going to the planning commission. i know there has been some questions raised about that. and if anyone would like to raise those questions, the planning department is here to responds to those. because i did put those in at the request of the department. so colleagues i do move the amendment as distributed. >> supervisor wiener has made a motion to amend as he described. is there a second to his amendments? seconded by supervisor cohen. discussion? supervisor olague? >> i'm fine with the one regarding the income,
3:13pm
monitoring additional. the reason we left it at 120 is the standard that abag and others apply. it wasn't that we were against it, but certainly we didn't have many concerns with adding that. but the other issue i don't support the second amendment at this time. i think there are area plans and other housing that comes that are not necessarily going to go to the planning commission automatically. market octavia, eastern neighborhoods, and other plans. i believe that some of the
3:14pm
projects because of the way the plans were finally approved, some of that housing won't come back for additional reviews to the planning commission. there are a lot of as of rights housing projects that i assume don't ever go to planning. so it's those projects that i'm concerned that we won't be capturing, if we add that second amendment. and that is why when the planning department came to our office initially asking us to add the amendment, we would not accept it at that time. because even other community housing organizations that we had been working with had raised concerns that we wouldn't be capturing some of the projects that the city was considering as of right. so that was the concern that i had. the first amendment, the one regarding the review of the affordable pieces i'm completely in favor of and fine
3:15pm
with that. >> supervisor wiener? >> so if i could just clarify with supervisor olague. the area that i think supervisor olague has expressed concern with is basically four words on page 4, line 24 of the amendment. that states, "to the planning commission," and i want to make sure that i'm correct in my interpretation of supervisor olague's remarks she is okay with the remainder of the amendment, but not with "to the planning commission." with that i would move to divide the amendment so we can vote on everything except the phrase "to the planning commission." and vote on that separately and if we could take the first amendment and ask the planning department staff to address the second amendment. >> okay. so supervisor wiener has amended the amendments. you withdraw your initial amendment and the revised amendment is the language he has proposed to be changed.
3:16pm
and that is seconded by supervisor cohen. >> so everything except to that one phrase i would move separately. >> colleagues any discussion on that amendment? can go that amendment without objection? without objection, that is the case and now to supervisor wiener's second amendment, which is on page 4, the limitation of the housing production summary attachment involving staff reports to the planning commission. those four words, that amendment was also supported by supervisor cohen and i know i think i also along with others have questions to the planning department. so is there a representative from planning that could talk to us about the need for that limitation? >> good afternoon, board
3:17pm
members, anne marie rogers from the planning department. we approached supervisor olague about the concern and the way it's currently written without the amendment from supervisor wiener it would be required that we do this dashboard report for every residential project with five or more residential units. as supervisor olague note there had are some projects that have five or more units that do not go before hearing before the planning commission. our objection to adding a dashboard report as part of our analysis for these programs is that we don't currently produce any report at all for these projects. it's a matter of review of the plans. and approval of the plans, if they are compliant with the code. that would be the steps. so our concern if we are to add a dashboard report to these projects since we're not currently publishing any report would require for the first time the production of reports
3:18pm
for these code-compliant projects that would add time, expense and delay to the cost these housing projects. which are generally pretty small and they are able to be approved without a hearing before the planning commission. >> colleagues, other questions? supervisor olague? >> i mean, i don't support it. i don't support that amendment. >> could you -- my question really is to planning, but it would also be to other colleagues. can you give us a sense if that language was not included, it seems to me that would capture a broader slice of what housing has produced in the city, which would more accurate. but i want to understand what the problem with that would be? >> the problem with the language, exactly as it says here it's required for the planning department staff reports on all proposed projects five units or move shall include the dashboard. and i'm not sure if it has any meaning because there are
3:19pm
currently no required reports. so i'm not sure what we would attach the dashboard to and our concern is that people might say that you need to start producing reports to fulfill this requirement. so all these projects which currently we did plan review, check and approval of, we would now possibly need to produce a report and attach the dashboard. so either it doesn't have any meaning or because we don't produce reports, or it does have meaning and we should start producing reports so we can attach the dash boards to. it if that is clear? >> supervisor olague? >> i didn't anticipate this amendment creeping up again, because we had discussed it at length and we were clearly opposed to adding that kind of language originally. so i didn't think i would be to be addressing it here today obviously. i think with the -- i think that it would give a better competence sense of what we're
3:20pm
actually constructing and approving and moving forward. because the approval of the neighborhood plans, prior to that there were probably a lot more project those would have gone through the planning commission. with the eastern neighborhood and market octavia in place, i am wondering if we wouldn't be capturing, because of that change, you know? that a lot more would be going on without the review of the planning commission that in past would have gone to the planning commission for review. so i'm concerned that we're really not truly assessing what is moving ahead. that is all. i don't know if you have a response to that. >> miss rogers, is there any
3:21pm
way to have an expansive sense of what could be captured? i think if we strike the words "to the planning commission," that you open it up to all sorts of reports, but if there are other area plans or other housing that are being produced that we may want to know about. is there another universe we could possibly add (yes. thank you for the question. while our department would prefer not to produce new reports to attach the dashboard to it. there are additional projects where we do currently produce reports and the dashboard could be attached to those. hearings before the historic preservation and hearings on the residential projects on appeal before the board of supervisors. >> have you considered language that staff reports to the planning commission and to hpc and to the board of supervisors related to various
3:22pm
area plans? is there language that could capture that? >> yes. is it might be easier for case reports or appeals before the board. we could do that. we could implement that. >> i guess in a way it would have been easier, but i don't have anything prepared really to evaluate this after it's in place to see if it really does have -- whether or not it does add an unusual burden to the workload of the department. because that is what i'm hearing the concern is here. and we're not really clear of that, because this hasn't even been instituted yet. maybe at this point we could just continue it for a week. can we do that? >> supervisor campos? >> i would like to move to
3:23pm
continue. >> i would second the motion to continue for a week. >> just a week. >> okay. and i guess one request i would make of planning staff if you want to propose some language, i think it actually could be quite simple to state that the planning department staff reports, et cetera. it would probably capture what i think we're trying to get a. i would support a motion to continue for a week with the understanding that we'll wrap this issue up over the next week. supervisor kim? >> if i can just add a few words? i want to thank supervisor olague's office for bringing this forward to us. i believe that supervisor campos and i co-sponsored a hearing to review the finding from the budget and legislative analyst's report and one recommendation that remain out of that report was to have a better monitoring system to have an assessment of what we're building here in san francisco, so we're not looking
3:24pm
at projects, project-by-project, but we have an understanding of the universe of what we're building in san francisco. so i support supervisor wiener's thoughts. i do want to make sure that however we have this reporting mechanism that we do it in way that is not overly burdensome on planning, but doesn't prevent of from getting fairly regular reports on monitoring. because i think this is an issue that is to utmost importance to us on the board to make sure that we have a diversity of housing being built and constructed in san francisco. so i appreciate the multiple perspectives coming forward and hopefully at some point planning could come to our office to explain how we [tpao-eupld/] find that
3:25pm
balance. supervisor campos. >> i think it would be helpful to have a few more days to discuss this. and i think that this is a tool that hopefully will be able to provide us information about a number of issues. and i think that including more information makes sense. i also want make sure that we're correct in sort of the terminology. in terms of income level if it's middle-income or upper-middle income. i think we just have to be accurate in how to describe it. so i look forward to the discussion next few days. thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you. i do want to respond to that last remark that supervisor campos made.
3:26pm
the 120-150% of ami is terminology that has been used in the city and elsewhere has always been referred to as middle-income housing. earlier this year i believe including the budget analyst's report earlier this year when i did a hearing on middle-income housing there was an effort to say no 120-150 is really upper-middle class housing. i think it's almost a way of disparaging it like these are upper-class people who are just doing just fine as opposed to people who really -- some of who are leaving the city because of the housing and educational issues. i wanted to be real clear that 120-150 does fall within middle-income housing. and you may recall that earlier this year the speaker of the assembly, one of the highest ranking democrats and labor
3:27pm
leaders in california, john perez introduced legislation to allow families who are middle-class to receive, i believe a two-thirds reduction in their tuition at state universities. unfortunately the legislation did not pass, but he pursued it. guess what? in san francisco 150% of ami is just slightly above $150,000 for a family of four. and of course san francisco has a much higher cost of living than the state as a whole. so if speaker john perez says that middle-class for a family, for the whole state of california goes up to $150,000 a year, then i think it's incredibly reasonable to say that the same is true in san francisco, even though it's much more expensive to live here than it is in most of the state your full name i
3:28pm
did just want to make that comment because the argument is not well-taken that to state 120-150 is upper-middle class than middle-class. >> supervisor campos. >> i don't think having a different perspective is disparaging and it's one of areas where there is room for disagreement. from my perspective it's good to provide more information and i certainly think that the more information that we get through this tool, the better. but i don't think that productive for us to focus on the intent of what we're trying to do. i think that we're all trying to get to the same result. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you. i support having more time to
3:29pm
sift through this. i have a reaction to the statement about perez. he is talking about what is meaningful towards our school system and higher education. i think that is a different value that is being put on in terms of what we're talking about what middle-income is. i think he is talking about making sure that we're expanding tuition in a very different way than we're thinking about housing in san francisco. so i just want to caution that we're not making apples-to-apples comparison and it's very different what we're trying to do around housing in san francisco. >> supervisor olague. >> the mayor's office on housing, what language is appropriate here? because there was difference made between middle-income housing and upper-middle income housing. so we want to check with the mayor's office. >> the last question